I respectfully disagree with the commentary on Nuclear Power. Nuclear power is a safe form of electricity. Our problems are political, not environmental. France and the United States Navy have proven that nuclear power can be safe and effective

Some interesting photos and captions in there. Most of us wouldn't think twice about what may seem semi ordinary pictures (aside from things like pink river)

At some point more science and less BS out of these shills for the polluting industries will actually be utilized (and yes the over hyping global warming group needs to tone it down too, be civilized, yeah right)

I am surprised there are not more photos sets like this out there (or if there are, I have not seen them)

I respectfully disagree with the commentary on Nuclear Power. Nuclear power is a safe form of electricity. Our problems are political, not environmental. France and the United States Navy have proven that nuclear power can be safe and effective

Agreed. Besides, the radiation emitted from the "infinity room" capsules is most likely entirely alpha radiation, which that very nice glass window in the picture (or even a sheet of paper or normal clothing) would protect you from. Hardly the danger it's hyped up to be.

I wish Ars would do more tech stuff. All they do these days is preach to me about how I'm destroying the planet.

"A dingo struggles in the face of a headwind on Fraser Island. The dingo has interbred with modern dogs, making it difficult to protect. On Fraser Island, dingos are the least interbred—no dogs are allowed on the island. But, despite local efforts, numbers are still falling."

Umm, if they are failing despite an environment created for them, why protect them? Evolution happens. Let it.

I have to take issue with the caption accompanying the Greenland photo. Farming has occurred on Greenland for centuries, dating back to the Vikings. Global warming may have made it easier, but it's not new.

I disagree with Essitt about nuclear power. That said, I wouldn't mind if other sources of power eventually replaced nuclear (esp. solar power + smart grid), but right now it is one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. Ignoring its benefits aggravates global climate change.

I like that Ars is not limiting itself to just tech. The science reporting here is the best I've seen among the popular science/popular tech sites.

Something I've always wondered about when driving past all the saw mills around here: if there's that many logs stacked up in the yard, rotting away, not being used, why are we still cutting trees down? Every mill around here looks like that picture with the logs stacked up ... and the stacks never change. The logs just get older, and older, and darker, and darker, until they aren't usable for anything. If there's that much extra wasting away in the mills, stop chopping down more!

Am I the only one here who thinks that most of these photos just aren't that impressive? A commentator in the story related to this one posted a link to pollution in China, with some really sickening pictures: http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/ama ... -in-china/. This is the kind of thing I expect to see if you confront me with a headline like "Stunning Photography of Man's Mightiest Shame": strip-mined mountaintops, people swimming in garbage, children stirring e-waste in acid pits, trees taking back Chernobyl.

Other posters here have rightly pointed out that a lot of the captions are not well thought-out and don't tell the whole story. I want to see higher standards from Ars. This story looks like a puff piece to promote the publication of a book.

I disagree with Essitt about nuclear power. That said, I wouldn't mind if other sources of power eventually replaced nuclear (esp. solar power + smart grid), but right now it is one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. Ignoring its benefits aggravates global climate change.

I like that Ars is not limiting itself to just tech. The science reporting here is the best I've seen among the popular science/popular tech sites.

Yeah, then a couple of them get drunk and post some pictures with nasty comments.

How many floating nuclear power plants do we have? Other than the Thresher, how many have sunk? I know, it's all our fault we user power, paper, water, and everything else. I would have gladly put together a mud hut on some random plot of land, but that's illegal. I am sure the carbon in the air and the reduced acid levels are the worst this planet has been through.

Hmmm, I remember chatting to some here about global warming and the solar cycles. People here told me it was impossible the sun could influence it, the models included it, and it was getting worse. All I have to say is LOL about that. I am not saying our presence doesn't affect this planet, but planet earth seemed to fair well when a moon 1/3 it's size smashed into it. I think it will clean itself just fine after some disease takes out a big chunk of the population.

I respectfully disagree with the commentary on Nuclear Power. Nuclear power is a safe form of electricity. Our problems are political, not environmental. France and the United States Navy have proven that nuclear power can be safe and effective

but planet earth seemed to fair well when a moon 1/3 it's size smashed into it.

We aren't concerned about the continued existence of the planet.

We are concerned about the continued habitability of the planet for humans. (and beauty, imho)

You are right, our existence, and some frog species within 100 miles from where you want to build a place to live. Environmentalism looks more like a control method recently. My favorite was an ad saying how much pollution smokers caused. Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill. Let's not build a modern nuclear power plant, let's chop the bird to bits with the wind farms. So efficient, LOL!

I guess it's my fault I drink diet soda, drive a gas car, and the world sucks. Having 3,000,000 people flying around the earth is so more efficient. Even though a train powered by nuclear energy could travel at 2/3 the speed. For oil, we could scrape our skin after conserving our limited water resources into a pan. What a joke! Go beat some billionaire's drum.

but planet earth seemed to fair well when a moon 1/3 it's size smashed into it.

We aren't concerned about the continued existence of the planet.

We are concerned about the continued habitability of the planet for humans. (and beauty, imho)

You are right, our existence, and some frog species within 100 miles from where you want to build a place to live. Environmentalism looks more like a control method recently. My favorite was an ad saying how much pollution smokers caused. Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill. Let's not build a modern nuclear power plant, let's chop the bird to bits with the wind farms. So efficient, LOL!

I guess it's my fault I drink diet soda, drive a gas car, and the world sucks. Having 3,000,000 people flying around the earth is so more efficient. Even though a train powered by nuclear energy could travel at 2/3 the speed. For oil, we could scrape our skin after conserving our limited water resources into a pan. What a joke! Go beat some billionaire's drum.

I'm not really sure what your point is, other than that you're hopelessly cynical. The environmentalism debate is hounded by politics on both sides; this is not news. The captioning here only serves to prove that point. The shame of it all is that while we continue to argue, often witlessly, about whether we're destroying our planet or not, the planet is being affected in big and small ways by the things we do, and by extension so are we and so are our future generations. It seems that too often we are asserting our dominance over nature by showing just how carelessly we can destroy it.

I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time waxing poetic, but a society in pursuit of a higher existence seeks first to improve itself; then to improve its neighbors; then to improve its future. We've done a good job on the first one, a so-so job on the second, and a lousy job on the last.

but planet earth seemed to fair well when a moon 1/3 it's size smashed into it.

We aren't concerned about the continued existence of the planet.

We are concerned about the continued habitability of the planet for humans. (and beauty, imho)

You are right, our existence, and some frog species within 100 miles from where you want to build a place to live. Environmentalism looks more like a control method recently. My favorite was an ad saying how much pollution smokers caused. Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill. Let's not build a modern nuclear power plant, let's chop the bird to bits with the wind farms. So efficient, LOL!

I guess it's my fault I drink diet soda, drive a gas car, and the world sucks. Having 3,000,000 people flying around the earth is so more efficient. Even though a train powered by nuclear energy could travel at 2/3 the speed. For oil, we could scrape our skin after conserving our limited water resources into a pan. What a joke! Go beat some billionaire's drum.

I don't feel bad about logging practices. We've got managed forests, we are actually reducing paper use, all that pulp you recycle comes from managed forests.

If you want to stop _deforestation_ (as opposed to sustainable logging), then all you have to do is go vegan, because the bulk of unsustainable deforestation comes from creating land for cattle grazing.

Interestingly, sustainable logging does have one draw back: in managed forests, they create the same board feet of lumber as non-managed, but thanks to better management, the wood is not as dense overall, meaning that for structural timbers of wooden structures have to be replaced with thicker pieces, which can create engineering challenges because the replaced timber won't fit.

but planet earth seemed to fair well when a moon 1/3 it's size smashed into it.

We aren't concerned about the continued existence of the planet.

We are concerned about the continued habitability of the planet for humans. (and beauty, imho)

You are right, our existence, and some frog species within 100 miles from where you want to build a place to live. Environmentalism looks more like a control method recently. My favorite was an ad saying how much pollution smokers caused. Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill. Let's not build a modern nuclear power plant, let's chop the bird to bits with the wind farms. So efficient, LOL!

I guess it's my fault I drink diet soda, drive a gas car, and the world sucks. Having 3,000,000 people flying around the earth is so more efficient. Even though a train powered by nuclear energy could travel at 2/3 the speed. For oil, we could scrape our skin after conserving our limited water resources into a pan. What a joke! Go beat some billionaire's drum.

Is that even english? I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

Oh my, that was such a witty insult. I don't know what's funnier, your expression that my ipad typing sucks, or your inability to comprehend simple communications. If you read it aloud, maybe you will comprehend that complex sentence structure. Would ellipses make it work better for you? You could fill in your own blanks, which you apparently do. So typical; the epitome of a political-leftist stereotype.

Fragile? If anything, our planet has proven its resilience many times over.

The planet will still be here after we've nuked ourselves into oblivion.And the planet will recover in a few decades. I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about humanity, specifically, my blood line. Everyone else can be responsible for their own blood line and if they do a decent job, we'll all be just fine.

Sourced from sustainably logged forests: yeah, right. This image gives some insight into the scale of the amount of wood our modern life requires. To argue that we can continue to do this without any consequences is simply stupid.

Can you site data on any of your snide comments? I don't visit Ars for opinions and baseless arguments.

Not an insult. I just literally didn't know what you were saying. For instance, what exactly does this mean "Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill." Perhaps I'm just not getting your "complex sentence structure".

I saw hatred and anger -- so you got that communicated. Unfortunately, all I could really see was something that seemed like ranting against frogs, Control methods, anti-smoking campaigns, metal in furnaces??, social influence, birds in windmills, diet soda, flying, nuclear trains, scraping your skin on limited water and a billionaire's drum. ....But none of it really made sense. I'm happy to factually debate what I think you are saying, but I can't because you haven't been clear enough to make your stance clear.

I respectfully disagree with the commentary on Nuclear Power. Nuclear power is a safe form of electricity. Our problems are political, not environmental. France and the United States Navy have proven that nuclear power can be safe and effective

Agreed. Besides, the radiation emitted from the "infinity room" capsules is most likely entirely alpha radiation, which that very nice glass window in the picture (or even a sheet of paper or normal clothing) would protect you from. Hardly the danger it's hyped up to be.

I wish Ars would do more tech stuff. All they do these days is preach to me about how I'm destroying the planet.

Surprised we haven't found a use for the secondary raditation eminating from this stuff. "Garbage" is only garbage when we can't find a use for it. Someone suddenly finds out these radiactive leftovers can contribute in some way, and a business will pop up shortly.

Not an insult. I just literally didn't know what you were saying. For instance, what exactly does this mean "Social influence, to throw a piece of metal in a furnace instead of a landfill." Perhaps I'm just not getting your "complex sentence structure".

I saw hatred and anger -- so you got that communicated. Unfortunately, all I could really see was something that seemed like ranting against frogs, Control methods, anti-smoking campaigns, metal in furnaces??, social influence, birds in windmills, diet soda, flying, nuclear trains, scraping your skin on limited water and a billionaire's drum. ....But none of it really made sense. I'm happy to factually debate what I think you are saying, but I can't because you haven't been clear enough to make your stance clear.

It was irony about environmentalism laws and how common practices are inefficient. More sarcasm than hatred or anger. It's also hard to type on this damned touchscreen. Please allow me to elaborate a little more clearly:

We are told we need to recycle metal containers that require high amounts of heat and energy to recycle. Glass is abundant and is totally efficient, but aluminum cans and plastic containers are cheap to manufacture. This is not our fault, and recycling those aluminum cans really provides a mixed value. For example, CRV taxes and fees. The law is not based on efficiency, but a revenue source depending on people not recycling. The cash value for this efficiency is an illusion, smoke and mirrors.

We also have to endure strict laws and standards for quality air acts. If you have an older vehicle, the repair costs are high because of the labor involved in the poor engineering. So, it is more "environmentally" friendly to sent your old car to the junk yard and buy a new one? It doesn't make any sense. If the motors could be converted for an alternate gas-type fuel, it would be more efficient. Our society discourages that though. Aircraft is one of the biggest culprits of air pollution, yet we continue to fly about 3,000,000 people in the air at any given time. High speed trains are more efficient at 2/3 the speed, but nobody can get everyone together to build a worldwide network.

Look at nuclear energy. People freak out about accidents, but these plants are rarely upgraded and modernized. We have a plethora of floating nuclear reactors on ship, with one or two accidents over the the past 50 years. The biggest issue with 3-mile island was contractor corruption, and we seem to lack a way to prevent the most basic of problem.

Look at wood production. We will always need paper, and I think they have done a good job with over harvesting through the recent years. Wouldn't it make more sense to build concrete structures in tornado areas? It goes back to cost. It cheaper to buy the same ing four times than do it right the first time.

All of it comes down to money, with some politics. Billionaires make more and more money, we make less, and there really isn't anything we can do about it. The lifestyle changes you make are insignificant compared to the core changes that are needed.

Images, Photographically speaking, mediocre.Captions, condescending and simple minded.Overall it was extremely off putting.

Good for you that you feel so smug in your righteous disdain of our actions but seriously (and I say this as someone who actually shares your dismay of our rampant infestation of the planet ) get off your high horse, go get a vasectomy, move to a small apartment down town, reject any medical interventions to extend your life and stop being such a dick.

I have a real problem with Ars's recent editing of the editorials. It took a little digging to realize that the captions were written by the obviously biased and ignorant National Geographic author that lacked historical understanding for all of the opinions.